|
On April 26 2014 10:00 CutTheEnemy wrote:
Basically it says that we learn better when we collaborate and talk about stuff. Social learning.
yeah. i don't get these studies. it always seems like people are trying to "justify" the game by making it out to be a tool for life. sure, you get some benefits from playing SC, whether they're social, intellectual, etc. but that doesn't mean there aren't 10,000 other hobbies out there that can do the same, like sudoku or something.
i mean, i'm not complaining that the study exists. i just don't get the point of it. we shouldn't have to drum up unscientific articles to justify our interest in gaming. as long as you lead a healthy life outside of video games, there's nothing to justify. it's a hobby and it's fun. it has some benefits and some drawbacks. but i think it would be going too far to suppose SC is some kind of engine for improving yourself as a person. it's just a computer game.
with almost any hobby, the benefits you reap are mostly determined by your attitude, and that's certainly true of SC as well
|
What's great about the starcraft scene is that content production isn't over saturated and there is a very large user base who are connected to all the main content aggregates (TL/Reddit) so that whenever good content pops up we can easily support it e.g. Carbot and his animations, Nathanias and his proleague casting, DefinitelyMiwa's videos. And of course this applies to more than just twitch streaming or writing articles, if you can find a niche and produce good content the TL community is one of the best places online to contribute to.
Also its possible that more than a few people started learning Korean in part because of SC (me included), which would of been nice to see in the article but I guess that idea applies to all content in different languages.
|
On April 26 2014 23:35 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2014 10:00 CutTheEnemy wrote:
Basically it says that we learn better when we collaborate and talk about stuff. Social learning. yeah. i don't get these studies. it always seems like people are trying to "justify" the game by making it out to be a tool for life. sure, you get some benefits from playing SC, whether they're social, intellectual, etc. but that doesn't mean there aren't 10,000 other hobbies out there that can do the same, like sudoku or something. i mean, i'm not complaining that the study exists. i just don't get the point of it. we shouldn't have to drum up unscientific articles to justify our interest in gaming. as long as you lead a healthy life outside of video games, there's nothing to justify. it's a hobby and it's fun. it has some benefits and some drawbacks. but i think it would be going too far to suppose SC is some kind of engine for improving yourself as a person. it's just a computer game. with almost any hobby, the benefits you reap are mostly determined by your attitude, and that's certainly true of SC as well
Have you read the paper? It deals chiefly with the attitude that predominates in the competitive SC community, namely self improvement, and how that creates a special dynamic when there is complex and dense interconnection between individuals and segments of the community.
|
Glad this finally came together, will give it a read when I have some free time,  .
|
On April 25 2014 21:03 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2014 05:25 Waxangel wrote:
The study about how people slow down at SC2 as early as 24 years old: "I didn't read the study, but I disagree because of personal anecdote X and unsubstantiated conjecture Y."
The study about how StarCraft helps learning: "I didn't read the study, but I agree because of personal anecdote X and unsubstantiated conjecture Y." Shhhhh, don't ruin everyone's fun. Don't call Bogus, I'm sure he's busy practicing. Anyhow, Day[9] was watching a Brood War stream the other day. Also, Project Atlas.
ohmygawd he is going to have a "day9'spassion" stream as well? Seems to be a trait of the Plotts to show occasional interest and then disappear again into sc2 nirvana 
|
On April 27 2014 17:02 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2014 23:35 Waise wrote:On April 26 2014 10:00 CutTheEnemy wrote:
Basically it says that we learn better when we collaborate and talk about stuff. Social learning. yeah. i don't get these studies. it always seems like people are trying to "justify" the game by making it out to be a tool for life. sure, you get some benefits from playing SC, whether they're social, intellectual, etc. but that doesn't mean there aren't 10,000 other hobbies out there that can do the same, like sudoku or something. i mean, i'm not complaining that the study exists. i just don't get the point of it. we shouldn't have to drum up unscientific articles to justify our interest in gaming. as long as you lead a healthy life outside of video games, there's nothing to justify. it's a hobby and it's fun. it has some benefits and some drawbacks. but i think it would be going too far to suppose SC is some kind of engine for improving yourself as a person. it's just a computer game. with almost any hobby, the benefits you reap are mostly determined by your attitude, and that's certainly true of SC as well Have you read the paper? It deals chiefly with the attitude that predominates in the competitive SC community, namely self improvement, and how that creates a special dynamic when there is complex and dense interconnection between individuals and segments of the community.
I think the problem with that is that this only indicates skill in games as an indicator of that attitude (which essentially boils down to patience and thoughtful consideration of losses). It doesn't necessarily say at all that this skill was gained because of games, although it might have been improved (as it would have in any activity in life). In SC1 I met plenty of impatient players who never really improved (worthless anecdote quota reached). Over time the lowest ranks of ladder got slightly stronger, but I can't say if that was because less skilled players lost interest and new players stopped coming in, or if the worst players genuinely started gaining these valuable life skills, albeit much slower than other players who improved quickly.
Day9's motto 'Be a better gamer' is nice and all, and about self improvement, and he does have a lot of influence over the community, but if a study is going to be convincing I'm going to want to see some surveys taken of people who have just lost a game, maybe when they start playing, a month after they've been playing, and 6 months after they've been playing, and see if there is a real attitude change and whether or not it looks like it is correlating to skills increase both inside and outside the game. But that would be expensive, so you'd better ask Blizzard for funding LOL
|
United States24802 Posts
It seems like the title of this thread and the title/subject of the PDF in the op are substantially different:
"StarCraft helps make you a better learner"
While I like the sound of that, I have to ask, after looking through the article and thread: where is the evidence? Some others in this thread touched upon this issue already, but all I really see is some discussion about modern theories of learning, some basic explanations of starcraft and its communities, and some interviews with well-known starcraft persons. In lieu of actual evidence that StarCraft enhances learning, this is merely an interesting discussion about starcraft and learning. If that was the goal, perhaps that's fine, but again the title of this thread is rather misleading then.
I recognize that I am going to become very critical when evaluating claims of things enhancing learning... sorry about that!
|
Just from Day[9]'s first observation, and correlating his learning experience in Starcraft to real life, I find the recommendations kind of faulty if you take them literally as they were stated. Its true that you will never absolutely know what the correct decision to make is in any given situation, but its clearly not true in a practical sense regarding many things we do in our every day life. In the subject of academics you really can know what the best decision is, you simply need to study more; because frequently you have to use a specific equation to resolve a problem and there is no such 'grey area' as in SC2 when deciding a build order at the start of the game. The idea that you "lose constantly" is decidedly not a necessary truth in life, and would make for a very poor and self-destructive model if taken seriously as an approach to life by any young person.
Starcraft 2 is specifically a game in which you don't have access to information about what your opponent is doing due to fog of war limitations...in real life there is no such necessary limitation, you really can figure things out by talking to people, visiting places, reading books, etc.. So I can't see why SC2 would serve as a good model for the latter, especially not when you're talking about life in general.
But anyway, I think Day 9 is an intelligent person and he probably meant something along the lines of SC2 training you to overcome the anxiety of not knowing what the correct decision is, which can be useful in similar situations in real life (not applied universally in cases when you really *can* know more). But even then I'm not sure to what degree this is true when comparing the importance of a video game to choices about your future career or a major exam or any test for that matter, so any derived benefits to me seem fairly minor and could have been learned from practically any other experience in which you have limited information and time constraints...and in many cases they probably could have done a much better job, like actually taking mock tests or something.
I find the notion that you could always have done better to be extremely suspect as well. There is this underlying assumption that you are always doing something wrong and that you can always improve, it assumes that the game is perfectly balanced. Is it impossible that there could exist a situation where you actually had a (practically) strong level of macro and micro, a good build in response to your opponent, but that they won due to, possibly subtle, yet still existing game imbalances? Is this to say that whenever Blizzard patches their game, the game as it existed previous to that patch was balanced and no such instances could occur? The game has so many variables and possible openings it is really hard to quantify all of this by a simple appeal to win rates; i.e. you could have numerous imbalanced aspects that cancel each other out overall over a series of games, but in which they would individually present serious problems to fair gameplay.
Just some issues I noticed. I'm not sure I want to continue as it would be too long...besides what micronesia and others have posted. But especially from what micronesia mentioned, I'm starting to think this journal isn't really something that people seriously read for recommendations on learning techniques. It almost seems to be just a place where people write their opinions on things..perhaps they're informed and researched opinions, but that is the extent of it all.
|
China6331 Posts
Damn I just realized I know the first name, I met and talked with Yong Min back around 2008~2009 when he came back to China to conduct studies about World of Warcraft.
|
this is crap. starcraft and poker gave me ADD. i can't even masturbate anymore unless i've got 10 videos going.
|
On May 04 2014 21:30 micronesia wrote:
It seems like the title of this thread and the title/subject of the PDF in the op are substantially different:
"StarCraft helps make you a better learner"
While I like the sound of that, I have to ask, after looking through the article and thread: where is the evidence? Some others in this thread touched upon this issue already, but all I really see is some discussion about modern theories of learning, some basic explanations of starcraft and its communities, and some interviews with well-known starcraft persons. In lieu of actual evidence that StarCraft enhances learning, this is merely an interesting discussion about starcraft and learning. If that was the goal, perhaps that's fine, but again the title of this thread is rather misleading then.
I recognize that I am going to become very critical when evaluating claims of things enhancing learning... sorry about that!
yes, agreed. my objection at the top of the page was in a similar spirit. it's clearly being presented as a study with some scientific value or insight, and anything presented in such a way should be providing rigorous proofs of what is being claimed. instead, the article reads more like an opinion essay mixed with a marketing writeup. that is not to say that there aren't valid hypotheses or interesting observations being made, but scientific study doesn't end at hypothesis. the connections being made by the author(s) do not have any statistical or demographical value, and a lot of the suppositions being made are causally vague and difficult to prove or disprove beyond generally seeming plausible.
again, i don't think anyone is saying "begone with your vile propaganda, charlatan!" it's an interesting piece of writing into which a lot of effort was clearly put. but a reasonable person has to look at this and realize that it's tailored directly to gamers' desire to justify, rationalize and aggrandize their hobby. i'm not calling it immoral or deceitful, but i think it's quite misleading and contextually embellished. as someone else alluded to, i've known people who played starcraft and were ill-mannered, refused to learn, even became addicted or obsessed with the game to no healthy or productive end. if i tracked down 23 such people, would i have a "study" on my hands too? honestly the group of people this article concerns seem to have successful and productive attitudes in common more than they have gaming or starcraft in common
On May 07 2014 09:50 Skew wrote:
this is crap. starcraft and poker gave me ADD. i can't even masturbate anymore unless i've got 10 videos going.
LOL
|
So it seems the main problem is that the randomness of the sample is being questioned. I can certainly see why. How are you going to find a decent sample of SC2 gamers when they're located all across the world?
Personally I'd be more interested in an experiment. Get a random sample of people who do NOT play SC2, assess their abilities, impose the treatment (make them play SC2) and see what happens
|
RTS's are great at teaching practical intelligence. You get feedback so much faster and learn at a much faster pace than traditional things. Since you're learning how to learn, it's like school or a job on steroids. I can't imagine anyone who is a progamer who is not pretty damn good at something else as well. Poker, commentating, jiu jitsu, and mma are just a few things that come to mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
